Re: RFS nuitka

[Kay Hayen <kayhayen@gmx.de>]

Hello Jakub,

you wrote:

> > ii (somewhat preferable). remove scons from within .orig.tar.gz
>
> I disagree that (ii) is preferable. You should not repack upstream
> source unless you have to. (Please see ftp-master's reject FAQ.)

Thanks for the pointer, I looked at it.

> > (optionally add +dfsg or .dfsg suffix to the version making it
> > 0.3.17~pre2+dfsg-1)
>
> Since the software would be repackaged for reasons that are unrelated to
> DFSG compliance, the "dfsg" suffix would be incorrect/confusing.

I have added the removal of "tests/benchmarks" as well, for which I as 
an upstream, would accept non-DFSG material as well. There is none of it 
in there at this time though.

So yes, Nuitka as upstream is 100% clear to DFSG. Should I change things 
back to patches then? These removals may get huge. Imagine e.g. that I 
include Shedskin tests or even dare include the whole CPython tests 
(once Nuitka is itself PSF too).

Or, probably another way, can I, as an upstream, provide 2 forms of 
tarballs, one for packaging and one for everybody else with more stuff 
like the scons inline copy and benchmarks and extended tests from 3rd 
parties already contained?

I saw the issue being rated as: Minor issues, sometimes also named "Good 
packaging behavior". Not a single one is enough to get you a REJECT, but 
if you collect multiple ones the probability rises

So, please advise. Like I said, I try to be a "good upstream" :-)

Thanks,
Kay